Believe it or not BK, that new meaningless phrase in fact is only one version of a very common phrase, and I have read in evo-science articles a phrase like that hundreds of times now. That is because the evidence never fits with evolution. They come like this;
"This will transform our understanding of evolution".
Notice it's always their understanding that is refuted and falsified, never evolution theory. LOL!
And all of that type of "playing it down", rhetoric.
Playing-it-down by example, is like this;
MrC; "I've just heard they found a bunny in the Cambrian."
Mr E; "Wow, this will totally transform our understanding of evolution but finds like this aren't a surprise it can happen."
Theorist; "I say orange snooker balls exist."
mike; "There's no orange snooker ball on this table."
Theorist; "Duh, have you checked the pockets."
mike; "Yes, none in there."
Theorist; "It will be in the box".
mike; "no and when we check the box there is only room for the balls they have."
Theorist; "this transforms the theory of orange snooker balls, and my understanding of orange ball theory, clearly the orange ball doesn't come with the set but is an addition sent with the set."
mike; "Yeah right, funny how your sentences turn into books when the evidence doesn't fit, let's check out some more snooker tables for orange balls, here is a picture of many tables in a snooker club, are all of the orange balls hidden from sight?"
theorist; "you just don't understand orange ball theory, the yellow balls in that picture may be the orange balls faded over time."
mike; "I went to the snooker club, there was only one yellow ball in every set, so there should be two if the orange ones are faded."
theorist; "this will transform our understanding of orange ball theory."
mike; "yes it will, our understanding is that it is bullzhit and that you think by eternally saying your understanding is transformed this will remove the fact that the true transformation in understanding would be to ditch your theory."